Trump set to announce an executive order against Volnation and other social media platforms.

#351
#351
LouderVol said:
And your idea, well not yours exactly, but the idea to fix this is to qualify even more speech as hate speech? (Cant be anti conservative) It doesn't make sense and it doesnt follow the ideology of those presenting it.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for our crazy president, but that's not what I'm arguing for at all. I'm not interested in banning all speech bashing conservatives. **** that would cut their user base by 75%. I'm suggesting they can't censor conservative users and then claim designation as a platform.

I'm not suggesting the abolishment of section 230, I'm just saying Twitter has to follow the guidelines if they want section 230 to apply to them.

Like I said, it then begs the question, what CAN Twitter remove from their site? And the answer is I don't have a good answer.
 
#354
#354
So conservatives are angry that a private company might deny them service and want something done about it!!!
But also let folks deny cake baking for LGBTQ+ couples?
Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#356
#356
zeppelin128 said:
So conservatives are angry that a private company might deny them service and want something done about it!!!
But also let folks deny cake baking for LGBTQ+ couples?
Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...

And that equation makes Dems hypocrites as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#357
#357
Ten_Titans said:
The straw man to word ratio is super impressive in this one.
Click to expand...
It isn't a straw man. You are pissed at a private company for saying something. And you want the Feds to be able to give you special privilege. Hypocrites, the whole lot of you. This board is completely fine with denying services to LGBTQ+ patrons. But oh don't you dare **** with your social media posts, when it is the same damn thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#358
#358
zeppelin128 said:
It isn't a straw man. You are pissed at a private company for saying something. And you want the Feds to be able to give you special privilege. Hypocrites, the whole lot of you. This board is completely fine with denying services to LGBTQ+ patrons. But oh don't you dare **** with your social media posts, when it is the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
It's funny you bring up special privilege, considering this entire argument is about special privilege Twitter already has.

Also, no one was denied a cake because they were gay or transgender. That's a straw man.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and NEO
#359
#359
Ten_Titans said:
It's funny you bring up special privilege, considering this entire argument is about special privilege Twitter already has.

Also, no one was denied a cake because they were gay or transgender. That's a straw man.
Click to expand...
Um, you sure about businesses denying cakes for LGBTQ+ folks?
 
#362
#362
Ten_Titans said:
Refusing to sell someone a cake because they are gay, and refusing to sell someone a custom gay themed cake for a gay wedding are not the same thing, no matter how much you would like to conflate them.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
#364
#364
zeppelin128 said:
So conservatives are angry that a private company might deny them service and want something done about it!!!
But also let folks deny cake baking for LGBTQ+ couples?
Bunch of ****ing hypocrites.
Click to expand...


What if everyone at your job got a raise based on political affiliation? Conservatives got a raise while libs got a pay cut. I’m sure you would just say “it’s your business I’ll just go somewhere else”.
 
#369
#369
Wafflestomper said:
What dystopian shithole do you come from where it's a "special privilege" to not have to assume liability for what someone else does on your property?
Click to expand...
The Dystopian **** hole where all other publishers are responsible for what they publish.

If you think it's logically consistent that Twitter can censor and edit the posts they want and claim they don't have any control over anything else, fine. Doesn't seem right to me though.
 
#370
#370
Ten_Titans said:
The Dystopian **** hole where all other publishers are responsible for what they publish.
Click to expand...

Twitter is still responsible for the content that they publish, so it's not clear how your gripe is any different than saying they ought to also be held responsible for what other people say--and that it would be a special privilege for that to not be the case.

Ten_Titans said:
If you think it's logically consistent that Twitter can censor and edit the posts they want and claim they don't have any control over anything else, fine. Doesn't seem right to me though.
Click to expand...

The alternative is that private companies don't actually have the right to free speech, which seems to me to be much worse than you having to use another service to host your thoughts. The GOP has really come a long way from the self-proclaimed moral majority and party of personal responsibility. JFC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger and RockyTop85
#371
#371
zeppelin128 said:
It isn't a straw man. You are pissed at a private company for saying something. And you want the Feds to be able to give you special privilege. Hypocrites, the whole lot of you. This board is completely fine with denying services to LGBTQ+ patrons. But oh don't you dare **** with your social media posts, when it is the same damn thing.
Click to expand...
I hope you are doing ok Zepp. Usually you seem a bit laid back and humorous but today you seem very angry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#373
#373
Wafflestomper said:
Twitter is still responsible for the content that they publish, so it's not clear how your gripe is any different than saying they ought to also be held responsible for what other people say--and that it would be a special privilege for that to not be the case.



The alternative is that private companies don't actually have the right to free speech, which seems to me to be much worse than you having to use another service to host your thoughts. The GOP has really come a long way from the self-proclaimed moral majority and party of personal responsibility. JFC.
Click to expand...
It is your contention that they aren't responsible for what other people say(even though it's their site) ... But their ability to censor what other people say is protected under freedom of speech(because it is their site)

That isn't a logically consistent argument.

The alternative is actually Twitter just doesn't do political censorship if they want to claim they aren't responsible for other people's thoughts. Crazy. Unimaginable. Unconstitutional. All that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01
#374
#374
Ten_Titans said:
It is your contention that they aren't responsible for what other people say... But their ability to censor what other people say is protected under freedom of speech.

That isn't a logically consistent argument.

The alternative is actually Twitter just doesn't do political censorship if they want to claim they aren't responsible for other people's thoughts. Crazy. Unimaginable. Unconstitutional. All that.
Click to expand...

Your right to free speech stops where someone else's (in this case, a company) begins; so it's entirely consistent. Twitter has the right to censor or amend your posts, although they would then be responsible for the content they provided.

What's inconsistent is claiming that you have the right to force a private company to host your "free speech" on their property, since you'd theoretically be taking their right to free speech away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top